|
Post by Clockwork on Jul 1, 2012 16:11:34 GMT
I was banned for a year and I got better. A lot better. Long-term bans do work.
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 1, 2012 16:26:31 GMT
I like them how it is, although the warning for grammar I had was about extreme, seeing as I was given it without warning but it did teach me as well to be careful when typing. That's my two cents, that agrees with eltoneyes.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 1, 2012 22:38:04 GMT
Honesty, I don't know the rules. I just came from after years so I just been following the simple universal rule of "use common sense". On this page: danballforum.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=welcome&action=display&thread=23After I click the link to the rule page I get this: "You are trying to access a board that does not exist." I not going to vote until I update myself to the current rules. Not to sound rude but I don't even know what the rules are. Can't really enforce something that don't exist. Anyone going to fix this or post me to a up to date rules list? Look at the top of each board...
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Jul 2, 2012 19:35:17 GMT
this is an absolutely horrific idea. this would effectively kill the forums. no, it would not fix shit. all it would do would cause members to get banned and leave. it's fucking stupid. you'd lose the last of the members if this was put into place
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 2, 2012 20:12:53 GMT
That assumes that any of the staff are irresponsible and would wield the ban-hammer at every opportunity without providing some kind of justification for the ban, which we are all required to do now and which we would all be required to do if the proposed change would take place. Really, half the active members here behave well enough as not to warrant a ban, and most of them wouldn't even warrant any kind of textual warning on account of their normally good behavior.
From what I can see, the only ones that would get banned are the ones who usually get banned, spam bots, and newcomers who lack all senses of respect and common sense, but as far as I can see, they would learn quickly and not be banned again or there would be celebration if they leave. I don't see how that will kill the forum...
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Jul 2, 2012 23:22:06 GMT
no there's definitely active members here with a long history of bans. people like nm, anon, lemon, and maybe even people like omnl would be completely gone. if this rule was active in the old forum too, even more people would be gone, including me...
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 2, 2012 23:26:20 GMT
I didn't say there weren't any: indeed, I accounted for such people when I said "From what I can see, the only ones that would get banned are the ones who usually get banned, [etc.]." Also, the last I checked, the people who have been banned many times are still here. Why would getting banned under a different ruleset be cause to leave when getting banned many times under this current ruleset isn't cause to leave?
I don't see why current members would be discouraged to leave...
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jul 3, 2012 0:37:23 GMT
this is an absolutely horrific idea. this would effectively kill the forums. no, it would not fix shit. all it would do would cause members to get banned and leave. it's fucking stupid. you'd lose the last of the members if this was put into place I think this is an absolutely fantastic idea. This would effectively settle the drama on the forum. Yes, it would fix shit, and would lead to much more respect between members. It's fucking great. We would gain many members if this was put into place.
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Jul 3, 2012 0:42:31 GMT
...dm, you were banned too if i recall... and no, we would not gain members at all. we're not gaining any right now anyway.
@ Veers - people would leave because of the people who'd been banned being forced to leave. why stay on the chat if those people aren't there? and the banning of this ruleset.. well, you know, bans are way extended, in fact extended WAYYY too long.
|
|
|
Post by D_M-01 on Jul 3, 2012 1:02:07 GMT
...dm, you were banned too if i recall... and no, we would not gain members at all. we're not gaining any right now anyway. @ Veers - people would leave because of the people who'd been banned being forced to leave. why stay on the chat if those people aren't there? and the banning of this ruleset.. well, you know, bans are way extended, in fact extended WAYYY too long. I think your post would be more accurate in saying that people such as yourself would leave because the fellow users you enjoy talking to, who perchance tend to break the rules very often and continuously, will be effectively given punishment for their misbehavior with this new ruleset in place.
|
|
|
Post by Necrotising Fasciitis on Jul 3, 2012 1:57:19 GMT
Look I'll try to put it another way as my point isn't getting very far.
We're a small community. We don't have a huge user base. Toughening up bans is ridiculous and completely unneeded. As I said we have a small enough userbase as it is: banning active members would effectively worsen the forum's activity and, well, cause it to die out. We don't even need tough bans. A week or 2 is usually completely fine. A year? That's seriously pushing it. So stop focusing on bans and rules. Focus on perhaps, expanding the community.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 3, 2012 7:36:26 GMT
The proposed change doesn't toughen up bans, it just allows moderators to avoid the problem of loopholes by making everything "at their discretion" and removing the "let's increase your warning bar until it reaches 100% then take action to deter you from your actions" system. This shouldn't affect newcomers unless the newcomers are terrible troublemakers who constantly disrespect others and cause grief to the forum as a whole, in which case we don't want them to be members of the forum anyways.
So to speak, we're not strengthening anything, just removing the strict, loophole-ridden, likely not-all-comprehensive rules and replacing it with a single "don't be a jerk" rule. We already have exponential bans anyways, making it so that every time someone reaches a 100% warning, they get a day ban, then a week ban, and so on until they receive a permaban. The exponential system is nothing new - it only seems that way because we put it upon ourselves to zero the warning bar when a user requests it be zeroed two weeks after the latest offense.
I could argue that, by simplifying the rules, there isn't this terrifying document that will intimidate those who usually wouldn't have to worry about it. That will likely make the forum more attractive, at least to those who bother to read the rules...
|
|
|
Post by supermonkeystorm on Jul 3, 2012 13:02:55 GMT
I read the revamp idea. Put bluntly, I think it sucks.
[Redacted, because this would probably insult the OP]
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 4, 2012 0:36:36 GMT
Might I ask why you think it sucks?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Jul 5, 2012 18:22:11 GMT
This post is to inform everyone that this poll will lock in one day, seven hours, and six minutes. If you want to vote, please make sure to put the vote in now...
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 7, 2012 10:23:14 GMT
Nooooo, the rules have changes now probablayy as it had a majority vote damn. So are now changing the rules to opening post?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Jul 7, 2012 21:25:31 GMT
Probably not directly, but they'll definitely be way simplified.
|
|
|
Post by Alonso on Jul 7, 2012 22:35:54 GMT
K, slightly smaller nooo! But yeah, is this a defenite change in the rules now?
|
|